Posterior hamstring harvest improves aesthetic satisfaction and decreases sensory complications as compared to the classic anterior approach in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery
Purpose The use of the posterior approach for harvesting hamstring grafts has recently become popular thanks to new all-inside techniques and retrograde drills. This study aims to compare the classic anterior approach with the posterior approach in the popliteal fossa. Methods Retrospective comparat...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of experimental orthopaedics Vol. 9; no. 1; p. 109 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Berlin/Heidelberg
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
03-11-2022
Springer Nature B.V Wiley |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Purpose
The use of the posterior approach for harvesting hamstring grafts has recently become popular thanks to new all-inside techniques and retrograde drills. This study aims to compare the classic anterior approach with the posterior approach in the popliteal fossa.
Methods
Retrospective comparative study of 100 consecutive cases of primary ligamentoplasty performed using ipsilateral semitendinosus autograft with at least one year of follow-up. 50 patients with anterior approach (group A) and 50 patients with posterior approach (P). Ratio men/women: 9/1. Mean age: 32 ± 13 years. Mean operative time: 64.88 ± 12.28 min.
Study variables
Graft harvest time; intraoperative complications (semitendinous [ST] tendon cut); postoperative neurological complications (allodynia, paresthesia, pain) or hematoma in the donor area; atrophy of the operated thigh compared to the contralateral thigh, postoperative VAS score, aesthetic satisfaction and overall satisfaction.
Results
Graft harvest time of 9.5 min in group A versus 5.25 min in group P (
p
< 0.05). Sensory complications: 16% in group A versus 2% in group P (
p
< 0.05). Regarding the patient’s evaluation of the aesthetic result of the surgery, 80% in group A and 92% in group P were very satisfied, 16% in group A and 8% in group P were satisfied and 4% in group A and no patients in group P not very satisfied (
p
< 0.05). No significant differences were found in terms of total operative time, postoperative joint movement, atrophy of the operated thigh, postoperative VAS, or overall patient satisfaction.
Conclusions
The posterior approach to harvesting the ipsilateral hamstring graft obtained better results than the anterior approach in terms of aesthetic satisfaction of the patient, lower rate of neurological complications (allodynia, paresthesias and hypoesthesia in the anterior region of the knee and leg) and shorter hamstring harvest time.
Level of evidence
IV. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 2197-1153 2197-1153 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s40634-022-00547-y |